This morning we welcome a new country to Europe. The creation of Kosovo as another state in the unstable Balkans is a reminder of how strong are the passions of people over their identity. The differences between people in Europe have been sources of tension and conflict for centuries. The shifting pattern of settlement, the divisions over religion and creed, the impact of great migrations and the long shadow cast by history lie behind so many of the persistent disputes.

Although Europe now has 45 countries, there are those who would like to see more. Passion is on the side of more smaller units. It is only the politicians and bureaucrats who are the Empire builders, wanting to create neat and larger units, drawing artificial lines across territories that are themselves crossed by the deeper marks of history and culture.

Belgium is witnessing a classic struggle between the Flemish speakers and the French speakers, as the Flemish seek to establish their own independence from the larger country. The Basques have never been happy with rule from Madrid. Scottish Nationalists would dearly love to drop their link to London, whilst English nationalism is now growing. South and North Italy are not entirely happy companions in a single country.There are still disagreements about the ideal shape of the country map in central Europe. In each case there has to be a democratic way to settle these issues that meets with the approval of a large majority to create stability. As a supporter of the Union of the UK I know the government needs to do more to engage people in seeing why it has worked in the past and making them feel it is fair today.In some of these European cases the large majority will want to keep the bigger country where it has established deep enough roots and loyalties of its own. In other cases people will want a redesign of the borders.Past attempts to unite the Scandinavian lands fell apart. Austria is once again an independent country. The two components of Czechoslovakia prefer their divorce to marriage.The three small Baltic states love their ability to go it alone.

I remember discovering just how deep these feelings can run, and how small the units are that command allegiance, when I inherited the task of remodelling Welsh local government. The 1970s reorganisation created large and unpopular units in many parts of England and Wales. The proposed 1990s scheme I inherited had been based on a bureaucratic view of how large a unit you needed to have a “viable” Council. The bureaucratic idea of viability bore no relationship to how people felt about themselves and their area. I decided instead to recreate the old counties of Wales, and to free the larger boroughs, giving to each their own unitary Council. Wherever I did this it was popular. I remember the representatives of Merthyr, overjoyed that I would give them their own Council after all, saying to me that they would have made me a Freeman of the Borough if only I hadn’t been a “Tory”! That was praise indeed.

The official machine disliked all these concessions to history and to feelings. They complained at every new extra Council I wanted to create. We ended up with the battle of Powys, which naturally split into the three old Counties of Brecknock, Radnor and Montgomery. Radnor was tiny, and I buckled over how feasible it would be for it to have its own all purpose local authority. I tried to free Montgomery from Powys, but Radnor and Brecon hated that solution even more. I set up a scheme for devolved decision taking in each County by the Councillors elected for that County in Area committees, so they could have some of the advantages of independence alongside the economies of the larger unit. It was not what they really wanted. They wanted independence. I regret not insisting that we split the three Counties, as I had done for the others, for identity does matter.

I wish Kosovo well, and hope that its independence will bring it more happiness. All those in government should remember just how local loyalties are, and how strong a sense of place and history people have. As a negotiating Minister in the EU I could still feel the fault lines from Reformation Europe. As a Minister involved in local government reorganisation in the 1990s it was obvious that the new and larger constructions of the 1970s had not settled down and had not won popular consent. There are still parts of Europe that feel they are governed from the wrong place by the wrong people. If we want a happier Europe we need more countries, not less, and more freedom for their governments,not more central control from Brussels.

On this day in 1923 Howard Carter opened the sealed doorway into the burial chamber of Tutankhamun. He, Lord Carnarvon his patron, and Lady Herbert, Carnarvon’s daughter went into the tomb. They saw the fabulous mask and the sarcophagus of the one Pharaoh whose grave had not been plundered by earlier generations of grave robbers.

Carter had spent fifteen years searching for the missing tomb. Lord Carnarvon, a keen supporter of archaeology, had been patient, but by 1922 even this most forgiving of patrons told the archaeologist he had only one more season in which to find the elusive Pharaoh.

Carter found the steps to the tomb on 4 November 1922. Lord Carnarvon willingly made the journey to Egypt from his beautiful Highclere estate near Newbury. On 26 November they made a small hole in the doorway and peered through into the antechamber. It was full of artifacts from the Pharaoh’s time. These were catalogued prior to the breathtaking discoveries beyond the sealed door, that awaited the party on that fateful February 16th 85 years ago.

Carter held an excavation permit from the Egyptian authorities, and the main items were delivered into Egyptian ownership. The tomb was not kept intact, and the amazing jewels and mask have travelled the world so many more people can see them. Some to this day believe it was wrong to violate the only tomb left untouched in the hugely impressive Valley of Kings. Some think it would have been better to have opened it to see, but not to have split up the collection and taken it from its intended last resting place.

To contemporary British people in 1923 it seemed natural that it should be a combination of British aristocratic money with a British adventurer who should crack the last secret of the Valley. It was typical of the self confidence of Empire. The willingness to work with the Egyptian authorities was born of a growing understanding that Britain no longer had the right to claim all it could grasp or find. It was a gripping Boy’s own tale of a hard pressed pioneer, up against his luck, who finally found something he had told the world was missing. Later generations have had more misgivings about what happened once they broke through into the tomb. Thoughts about this reflect the move from Empire to a more complex world, with different people and nations having different views of what is the right thing to do to revere and understand the past.

Yesterday I went to meet the new Chief Executive of Wokingham Unitary Borough Council. Chief Executives come and go in local government, drawing good salaries whilst they stay, before moving on to larger Councils or quangos that spend more money and employ more staff. The last couple of Chief Executives at Wokingham have had three big issues on their desks, that have now been passed on to their successor.

The details of the issues will not concern most readers of this site, though they are similar no doubt to issues facing other Councils in the suburbs and shires. The interesting thing is to ask, Where does power lie now in this overgoverned but undermanaged country we live in? How much power does a Chief Executive, working to the brief of the Council leadership, have to get things done?

The three things that the Councillors agree about that sit on the CEO’s desk are that Wokingham is experiencing too much new housing development on green fields, that it needs a redeveloped Town Centre (including some new residential units), and that it needs a new station and transport interchange. These items have sat on the same desk – with different people looking at that from behind that desk – for the last ten years.

My electors are right in thinking that a project like a new station requires efforts from national and local government, from Network Rail and from the Council. In 2001 I included in my election proposals support for a new station and transport interchange. I was careful not to claim I could deliver one. An Opposition MP has no executive power and no budget for such things. I took plans to the Council, the government and Railtrack/Network Rail. I explained how the land – owned by the public sector – could be used for a suitable development which would give enough planning gain to pay for a new station. I reasoned that the Labour government favoured rail travel. It had a policy to modernise the railway. Even assuming it wouldn’t want to spend any additional public money in an area like Wokingham, our golden acres could come to the rescue and raise the money for a suitable scheme. Ministers confirmed they liked the idea of modernising stations out of property profits at Network Rail. Schemes were drawn up. The Council was enthusiastic. The Chief Executive was given it as a task to see it through. Nothing happened. In the 2005 election I dropped all reference to supporting such a scheme, as I concluded that Network Rail simply isn’t up to doing something like that.

My electors are also right in thinking that the national government is heavily involved in all the building on floodplain and over the remaining greenfields which they so dislike. Councillors and their executives are locked in difficult arguments about whether to confront the government and lose, or whether to co-operate with the government and gain more cash from developers when they get planning permission. As an Opposition MP I join with my colleagues to demand more local planning control, and to vote against the centralising measures this government pushes through. The Council has to conform to government requirements in the local plan, and finds that if it turns down too many proposals the government simply trumps it on appeal. If the Council co-operates it can do a better deal for the local community over any given planning application, at the cost of some electors thinking they have been let down by their Councillors who should have opposed it to the last ditch.

The third item on the CEO’s desk is the need for a redevelopment of the Town Centre. In this case the Council has granted planning permission, but the developer is still not in a position to carry out the works. For once it is not government that is the problem, but getting all the private interests together and pointing in the same direction. It is an interesting challenge for the CEO, and one which has defeated her predecessors.

It all adds to people’s sense of frustration with government. The Council they elect cannot have its way on planning matters, and cannot get the nationalised railway company to follow the stated policy of the government that owns it on our behalf. Even when MP, Council leadership and the Council executive team are united on what to do, the stifling inadequacies of central government and Network Rail, or the deliberate wish to follow a different policy in the case of planning conspire to prevent progress or to thwart the will of the community.

The Chancellor makes a habit of clumsy speeches. In the great tradition of telling the banks they had been badly run and would not be bailed out just a few days before he guaranteed the deposits of any bank in trouble, yesterday he popped up again and says the City is paying people too much for poor performance. He would like to see their pay cut.

For once I will agree with him. I think if someone presided over a large organisation which lost all the personal details of half its customers, the boss’s pay should be cut. If someone presided over the first bank run in more than a hundred years, their pay should be cut. If someone rushed out press threats to tax Non Doms more, only to have to withdraw some of the proposals because they were too damaging, his pay should be reduced. If someone decided to increase capital gains tax by 80% for entrepreneurs, and then had to climb down on part of that proposal, we should look at how much they were being paid.

Can anyone think of someone on high pay who might fall into any of these categories? And what should happen to the pay of someone in the unlikely event that they managed to do all four? Should he be paying us to carry on in the job?

It is an easy drive to Tesco, Asda, Sainsbury or Waitrose from my home. None of them are easy to reach by train or bus. I think we are well served by our competitive supermarkets – but not by our monopoly public transport.

It was typical of the OFT and the Competition Commission to pick on successful UK businesses for their latest set of press releases, and amusing to see a Judge stand up to the OFT and criticise it for its very New Labour failing of chasing headlines, without proper concern for due process and the impact of its populist remarks.

The Supermarkets stand accused of responding to the government and popular pressure to pay farmers more for the milk they supply. The Competition Commission apparently thinks we are short of quangos in this country, and wants the public to fork out for another one, this time to act as an overseer of all the supplier contracts supermarkets enter into. When will these people learn that we are not short of regulators, and that there is a price to pay for endless layers of supervision?

If the guardians of competition want to do something useful they should look at the exploitation of monopoly, with high costs and high prices, in some of our important services. Why don’t they investigate:

1. The surge in costs at Network Rail after nationalisation, and the high access charges to track
2. The high and rising costs of the postal service
3. The absence of cost effective and reliable train services in many places
4. The poor performance of many rubbish collection services allied to high Council taxes
5. The rising costs and poor performance of some water monopolists over flood control, with rationing when it’s dry weather for a bit.
6. The high charge for a BBC licence allied to its persistent pro bigger government and pro EU bias

If I don’t like one of the local supermarkets I can go to another or to the corner shop. I think they all do a fantastic job with sensible prices, They offer high quality, great choice, flexible hours. Tesco is the market leader currently,because more people choose to shop there than elsewhere. If Tesco ever lost its understanding of what we, the customers want, if it became too expensive or stocked the wrong things, it would lose its position. There is plenty of aggressive competition from others trying to take the first place away from the leader. Tesco’s record at running a profitable, socially accoutnable business is excellent. Its stores participate in their local communities,and the buyers flex the product range as they see customer tastes altering.

If I don’t like my rubbish service I still have to use it, and have to pay the bill under threat of prison if I withheld money for poor performance. If I don’t like the local train service, or find it is not convenient, I have to lump it. If I want a different water service I am out of luck. If I don’t want the additives in the water which are standard supply I have to put up with them.

It’s high time the government, the Competition authorities and the regulators got stuck into these real examples of poor service and high price. Meanwhile, the fact that so many of my constituents choose to go to Tesco shows they must be doing something right.

The Bank of England yesterday bowed to the inevitable and warned us that we will become worse off this year. Many people already feel worse off, after the huge increases in food and energy costs that we have experienced in recent months. There was no apology for leaving credit too loose a couple of years ago, and no public recognition that the Bank had kept conditions too tight last summer and autumn as the bakdrop to the Northern Rock crisis. There was no revision to the absurd line just before the Northern Rock crisis struck that banks had been foolish in their lending and there would be no bail outs!

The Bank is right that they are boxed in – boxed in by government spending that is too high, by a public sector whose productivity is too low, by past credit excess and rising prices, and by the more recent Credit crunch which is having a big impact on property. The Bank is partly boxed in by governemnt mistakes – the government should have reined back more on wasteful spending earlier, and cut public borrowing – and partly by its own erratic performance on money growth.

We now have a boom and bust approach to credit creation – boom in 2003-6, bust in 2007. We have had boom and boom in public spending. Now we see the government fighting to get to grips with the problem of over spending.

I am glad the Conservative leadership has responded to those of us who have asked that we should not match all of Labour’s spending plans in the future. We should keep all the teachers, nurses, doctors, police and armed services personnel, for they only cost under one quarter of publilc spending. We should not keep all the quangos, regional governments, ID cards, computerisation schemes, advertising budgets and management consultancy contracts. They do not represent value for money and they are squeezing the public needlessly.

The National Post of 13 December 2007 reproduced the text of a letter sent by 100 leading climate scientists and other experts to the Secretary General of the United Nations. The letter told him that “There has been no net global warming since 1998”. It urged the UN to concentrate on encouraging national and international efforts to adjust to whatever climate changes might lie ahead, rather than thinking UN action could stop climate change.

This winter has been particularly severe in large parts of the Northern hemisphere. China has been experiencing Artic conditions, with heavy snowfalls disrupting travel and economic activity. Temperatures have been falling to 20 degrees below zero in the mountains and on the steppes of the former Soviet Union. There are reports of frozen rivers and frozen hydro electric systems leaving people with no power and no heating in the appalling cold.. This is not proof of a new ice age – just a reminder that weather is difficult to predict and variations can be wild.

Here in the UK a wet summer has been followed by the occasional wet period in the winter. The flood threat is ever present. The government dashes around issuing press releases, setting up enquiries, promising more of our money in future years, but still does not get on with the jobs of clearing water courses, improving ditches and working with the water authorities and local authorities to strengthen our flood defences.

I have put in evidence to the Prime Minister, at his request. I have put the same evidence to DEFRA. I have given written and oral evidence to the Pitt Review. I have had meetings with people from the Environment Agency and the local Council, and have exchanged many a letter with water companies and all the army of regulators and governors in this area.

It is a prime example of massive spending on a lot of well intentioned regulation and administration, with all too little of the money being spent on anything useful. The final irony is the possibility that many of the government’s planned 3 million new homes will be built on flood plain.

The government has been struggling with Gordon Brown’s sweeping dictat that there will be 3million more new homes by 2020. When he announced it it was difficult to see how people would afford them, as house prices were soaring out of sight of the would be first time buyer. Now prices are weakening, it is difficult to see which housebuilders will be able to afford to build so many. Offering people homes on floodplains, after the images of last summer, will not be an easy sell. It will be even more difficult if insurers say they will not insure them, or if they want high premiums for taking the risk.

The answer to all this is simple. The government should spend more of its current huge regulatory budget in this area on practical measures to improve flood defences. It should not allow building on floodplain, unless the developer has a scheme which will ensure no flooding and make a contribution to better water management. Mr Brown should recognise that a 3 million target may be difficult to achieve in the current climate. Housebuyers are put off by the declines in house prices, and housebuilders are constrained by tight credit and shrinking margins on their work. The government should b e relieved if the housebuilding rate does not fall. They should not expect in these current difficult economic conditions to see a surge in housebuilding to the new higher levels of the PM’s imaginings.

It is typical of this government that Parliament should not be meeting on this day of all days.

On 13th February 1689 “the Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons assembled at Westminster” presented a declaration to the new sovereigns, King William and Queen Mary.

<a href=’http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/2008/02/13/the-government-tears-up-the-bill-of-rights/889/’ rel=’attachment wp-att-889′ title=’williamiii1.jpg’><img src=’http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/williamiii1.jpg’ alt=’williamiii1.jpg’ /></a>

This declaration, known as the Bill of Rights, established Parliamentary supremacy over the Crown in important areas, and guaranteed Parliament’s freedoms .It did so that the people could practise the religion of their choice, avoid arbitrary manipulation of their laws and require redress of ills before they had to pay taxes.
The Declaration included amongst other articles:

“That the pretended power of suspending the laws or the execution of the laws by regal authority…is illegal

That the levying of money for or to the use of the Crown ….without grant of Parliament…is illegal

That the raising or keeping of a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with the consent of Parliament, is illegal

That election of Members of Parliament ought to be free

That the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament

And that for the redress of all grievances, and for the amending, strengthening and preserving the laws, Parliaments ought to be held frequently”

This new settlement was designed to put an end to the rule of James II and of any other King who thought he could govern without Parliament, raise money without Parliamentary approval, suspend the laws and manipulate the army.

It proved effective. All subsequent monarchs had to acknowledge Parliament’s power, and seek accommodations with Parliament when they needed money, wanted to amend the law or wished to drive through important changes in the nation.

It is sad that today’s Parliament allows itself to be regularly suspended, to be timetabled into subservience on crucial matters, sidelined by Ministers who tell the media before the Commons, and overruled by Brussels. If Mr Straw wants a new constitutional document, he could do worse than enforce the provisions and spirit of the Declaration of Rights, one of the central documents to emerge from our predecessors’; struggles for liberty and free speech.

Why oh why do Labour MPs put up with it – their government is preventing Parliament meeting all this week. We cannot discuss the government’s climb down on the Non doms, the state of play on the Northern Rock bids, the inflation rate or anything else that matters. No wonder people are fed up politics – it’s a different world from the commercial one where people have to work every week to pay the wages.

On the eve of Valentine’s day we should ask Is love enough? There must be as many young men attracted to their sweethearts as ever, as many young women dreaming of their wedding day as ever. We also know that the rate of divorce is high, the hesitation about marriage is pushing it later for many couples, that all too many couples struggle to stay together when the cake and the honeymoon fades in the memory.

We have to recognise that there has been huge social change in recent decades. I was blessed to be brought up by parents who enjoyed – and still enjoy – a good marriage. I remember being surprised as a teenager by a surprise remark of my late grandmother, who opined that if she could have her time again she would never have married. I had taken it for granted that my grandparents, like my parents, had a good marriage as they were always together when I saw them. Her words made me reappraise, and see the heartbreak and the misunderstandings behind the institution of marriage.

In my grandparents day it was almost unheard of to think of divorce. There was shame in it. Contrived adultery often had to be arranged if there was no real adultery on offer to persuade the courts that the marriage had failed. Because divorce was unusual people felt the pressures of society to stay together.

There was also economic necessity. Most marriages survived – and some thrived – on the splitting of the work. The men took on the paid employment so their wages could pay the rent and the food bills. The women did the rest, washing the clothes, preparing and cooking the meals, making the home. Much of that was hard physical work, without the labour saving devices we take for granted. A man did not want to wield the broom or cast the needle – or thought he couldn’t – it was not his province. The woman did not expect to clean the shoes or earn the income – that was her husband’s role. This economic model forced the unhappy to stay together, depending on each other economically but building their own interests and circles of friends for the little leisure time they had. The man would go to pub or club, the woman to her circle of family and neighbours. It probably also encouraged more love and companionship between others, as they came to respect or admire what the other achieved in the male and female spheres. They were partners, not competitors.

My parents generation saw some shift in this. My father would help with home tasks that his father’s generation would have spurned. My mother did take a paid job outside the home when I became a teenager, to supplement the family income. The basic pattern still had a lot in common with the pre war generations, but it was on the move.

Subsequent generations have seen this old model pulled apart. There is no longer the same rigid distinction between man’s work and woman’s work. Men change nappies, run the hoover, stack the dishwasher, peel the vegetables. Women get well paid jobs, use the paint brush, drive the car. This very multiskilling which can bring lovers into closer friendship, can also teach both woman and man they can live on their own. They do not need “the other half” as they can be the whole article themselves.

A woman’s ability to earn a living, and a man’s ability to cook a meal and wash a shirt can make each party less tolerant of each other. There is less need to compromise when living together – there is another option. Some ask if the wife or husband does not live up to expectations, then why carry on?

Many politicians would like to save or strengthen marriage, but show some humility as many have found keeping their own marriages too difficult a task.

Some of my colleagues believe that offering a tax break for marriage can change all this. I agree it could help. It is a perverse incentive to create a tax and benefit system which makes people better off if they live apart or alone. We should not think however, that it will be a complete answer. Women’s economic freedom is a good thing, but it naturally increases the pressures against marriage or long lasting marriages, as it removes the need of their grandmothers and great grandmothers to grit their teeth and carry on for economic necessity. The saying “You’ve made your bed and now you have to lie on it” sounds hopelessly dated and unrealistic. Today many more people think that if they have made the wrong bed they will change it instead.

A consumerist world produces a culture of instant gratification. Some see their marriages through the distorting images of the rich and famous having the perfect day for their wedding, more than they understand the subsequent rupture of so many of those celebrity alliances.

If marriage is to be strengthened we need to think more about how it can work and what legal framework it needs in this very different society. It requires friendship as well as love, tolerance and understanding as well as passion and attraction. The very differences between men and women that make much of the excitement and romance, can become the sources of tension and disagreement later. Men like things, women are fascinated by relationships. Men want to talk about Manchester’s team tactics, or the performance of the latest car: women want to talk about feelings and moods. There needs to be give and take to make it work, and goodwill on both sides. There is no easy quick fix for politicians, as expectations of marriage have outrun the average experience of it. The attitudes towards income and property in family law when marriages are broken up seem dated, based on a different model of the roles of men and women.

Tomorrow there will still be many young men buying the roses and the chocolates, sending the cards, and summoning up courage to tell someone they love her. There will be many young women hoping for the invitation, and wanting to receive the gifts. I wish them a lovely day.

As Obama pulls ahead of Clinton in the race for the democratic nomination, there are signs of more people in the US wishing to get away from the alternation of the Presidency between the houses of Bush and Clinton that has characterised the last two decades.

The US Presidency is a curious amalgam of the ancient and modern. Like an old monarchy, the President is Head of the armed forces. In the more modern UK in this respect, the professional heads of the armed forces report to a middle ranking Cabinet Minister, the Defence Secretary, who in turn reports to a senior cabinet Minister, the Foreign Secretary, and to the Prime Minister.The UK has long enforced the seperation of the armed forces from politics, and has had a fear of standing armies.

Like a modern republic, the US President is Head of State as well as Head of government. He is also a modern King – the titular Head of the country and the unifying presence for times of national celebration or grieiving, as well as head of the executive.

It would not be healthy for this very powerful post – 3 jobs in one – to become hereditary. US politics has certainly been baronial if not monarchical during my adult lifetime. The Kenendy dynasty rose in the 1960s, the Bush in the 1980s and the Clinton in 1990s.

I have been criticised for changing my mind on Obama. I see nothing wrong with changing your mind if the sutuation changes, or if you learn something new of importance. I try to learn something new each day. On this occasion, however, I have not changed my view. From the beginning I said I thought his anti Washington anti politics campaign was great, and would represent a strong challenge. I always thought he could win but was not sure he would win. I still have the same view.

I also always said I did not like his policies to the extent that he had revealed them. I do not believe he would live up to his fine rhetoric in power, as I do not believe he knows how to make government smaller and more responsive, two essentials if we are to tackle the disillusion with big party politics on either side of the Atlantic.

There are good civil liberty objections to the government establishing a data base for young people’s qualifications, which is coming across on the airwaves.

There is also a simpler, financial one. When will this government stop dreaming up expensive centralised data computer schemes? Does it not realise, even today, that the extra spending has to stop? Does no-one in government know where the spending tap is, and know how to turn it down?

We need a a year of no new spending initiaiitves, a year of trying to get more out of what they are spending, a year of cancelling some of the stupid, wasteful and spiteful projects that are already running. Ruth Kelly could cancel some of the lorry loads of intrusive technology her department revels in at transport, the Home Office could cancel the ID scheme, and the Treasury can stand down the accountants who were about to march into the offices of the Non Doms.

Best of all, they could cancel the orders for more CDs to lose in the post, and fail to replace any ciivl servant leaving one of the jobs where all they do each day is dream up more ways of prying into our lives and putting us under surveillance. We are not only fed up with them making Britain into a kind of prison camp for all of us inmates, but for sending us the extortionate bill for it.

I do not go in for gesture politics. Prime Ministers apologising for events of over a hundred years ago, often with a patent lack of sincerity, with the media in full attendance to make a political point leaves me cold. I am fed up with people expecting England to apologise for battles fought centuries ago when standards and attitudes for so different everywhere. If challenged on such an apology, I usually say I will wait for the French to apologise for the Battle of Hastings first.

The Australian Prime Minister’s apology for the more recent treatment of native people in his country was different. It can help heal wounds that are of more recent origin. It was clearly wanted by people whose own childhoods were changed fundamentally when they were taken from their mothers at an early age. It does not lead to financial compensation and will be criticised by some for that, but it is recognition that modern Australia has a different approach, and wishes to unify its people.

I welcome that, and trust it will be reflect a spirit of apology and forgiveness on both sides of the divide.

The debates about the EU Constitutional Treaty was another sorry coda to our long and distinguished history of Parliamentary democracy. As I sat through or watched the days of debate, I felt so sad that the Mother of Parliaments had come to this.

Our constitutional history prior to the federal Treaties was a proud one. Three important movements came together to create a democratic nation.

There was the continuous pressure of Parliament to gain the right to censure and control the executive. The governments of Kings and Queens were made to listen, to deal with grievances, to ask before they imposed taxes. Later the royal government evolved into Cabinet government formed from the elected members of the Commons. The whole process revolved around the principle of no taxation without righting wrongs.

There was the growing pressure as the centuries advanced for more and more people to gain the right to vote, so they could have a say in how they were governed and who governed them. We moved from a franchise of rich men to all men, and from older women to all women coming to enjoy the right to vote. The principle involved was no taxation and new law without representation.

There was also the movement to enlarge and unite the United Kingdom, with Wales joining in 1485, Scotland in 1707 and Ireland in 1800. After the formation of the Irish Free State we arrived at a United Kingdom where the majorities in each part of the country were volunteers to be part of the Union and to stay in it. It is a Union based on popular support, and one which could be reduced in size should any majority emerge in any substantial part of the UK that wanted independence.

These three great movements are all threatened by the passage of the EU Treaty of Lisbon. The EU’s encouragement of regionalism will help split countries and encourage new loyalties. The EU’s wish to decide so many things through European Court of Justice decisions is inimical to government by representatives answerable to the electors. The EU’s wish to concentrate more and more power in the unelected government of the Commission takes away accountable power from Parliament.

The debates about the Treaty of Lisbon were at their heart debates about where power should lie. Those of us who believe in Parliamentary democracy believe the power should rest in Parliament, to be exercised by MPs on behalf of the people. Once every few years the people can then decide if that group of MPs have exercised it well in the people’s name, or if they need replacing. The people lose their power if Parliament loses its power. Neither Parliament nor people can control what the Commission does, what the European Court of Justice does, what the EU president will do.

Day after day during the Lisbon “debates” we were allowed just one and half hours to discuss a fistful of important amendments and complex issues about the government’s wish to transfer major powers to the EU and to put European duties into our law codes through adopting the Constitutional treaty. The government allowed four and half hours for a general debate each day, in order to prevent MPs getting into the important line by line analysis of the 358 Articles and 327 pages of the “Consolidated texts of the EU Treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon”. Several MPs each day were unable to make the speech they wished to make on the first group of amendments. Subsequent amendments on the order paper languished without debate, thrown into the dustbin of history without word or vote.

This is a constitutional outrage. All previous governments have allowed substantial time for proper debate of constitutional bills on the floor of the House. Much of the time the House has met in committee, which means MPs have time to move amendments and speak to them. Some move probing amendments, to test out what Ministers think the words of the legislation they are recommending mean and will do. Some are important amendments designed to change the bill, to correct errors or remove harmful clauses and provisions.

Bill Cash invited a number of us concerned about the legislation to implement the EU Constitutional Treaty to meetings before the debates began in the House. We all agreed that we needed to move a series of amendments to strike out the varying parts of the Treaty and Bill which transfer substantial powers from the UK to the EU. Bill Cash kindly produced a wide ranging series of amendments which we co-signed and lodged. I am grateful to him for his hard work in producing them. Anyone who values a democracy in the UK should be glad he took the trouble and set out to make a fight of it before these powers are lost, as an adjunct to the full rejection of the Treaty offered by the official Opposition.
The government turned down the official Opposition’s request for 20 days of consideration. We were offered 12 in committee, plus a day on Second Reading to discuss the overall picture, and a day to discuss the so-called timetable motion. The Official Opposition argued passionately against the whole Treaty, and we voted against it on a three line whip. We all argued passionately against the very restrictive timetable, and voted against that on a three line whip. Needless to say we lost both votes, because there were too few Labour rebels. The Lib Dems sided with the government on the Treaty.

We were promised by the government “line by line scrutiny” of this massive piece of legislation, as if this were new or a concession. “Line by line scrutiny” of legislation was what we usually had before this government. Most bills went through on no timetable, allowing the Opposition to table as many amendments as they wished and debate them for as long as they liked. Parliament often met into the early hours in the morning to hammer out disagreements on complex bills.

What takes my breath away is the audacity of the government to introduce a constitutional outrage on this bill of all bills. Their decision to allow only one and half hours a day to debate amendments stifled proper consideration. Replacing the time we should have spent in committee with a series of longer general debates was a cynical manoeuvre designed to prevent the Opposition revealing all the danger in the detail as we see it. It implies Ministers are unsure of their ground and their case, that they do not wish to be exposed to the usual cross examination on the wording of each part of this long and complex text. As if denying us a referendum was not enough, Parliament too had to be sidelined.

The debates about the EU Constitutional Treaty have been a sorry coda to our long and distinguished history of Parliamentary democracy. As I sat through or watched the days of debate, I felt so sad that the Mother of Parliaments had come to this.

Our constitutional history prior to the federal Treaties was a proud one. Three important movements came together to create a democratic nation.

There was the continuous pressure of Parliament. The governments of Kings and Queens were made to listen, to deal with grievances, to ask before they imposed taxes. Later the royal government evolved into Cabinet government formed from the elected members of the Commons. The whole process revolved around the principle of no taxation without righting wrongs.

There was the growing pressure as the centuries advanced for more and more people to gain the right to vote, so they could have a say in how they were governed and who governed them. We moved from a franchise of rich men to all men and women..

There was also the movement to enlarge and unite the United Kingdom, with Wales joining in 1485, Scotland in 1707 and Ireland in 1800. After the formation of the Irish Free State we arrived at a United Kingdom where the majorities in each part of the country were volunteers to be part of the Union and to stay in it.

The debates about the Treaty of Lisbon are at their heart debates about where power should lie. Those of us who believe in Parliamentary democracy believe the power should rest in Parliament, to be exercised by MPs on behalf of the people. Once every few years the people can then decide if that group of MPs have exercised it well in the people’s name, or if they need replacing. The people lose their power if Parliament loses its power. Neither Parliament nor people can control what the Commission does, what the European Court of Justice does, what the EU president will do.

Day after day during the Lisbon “debates” we have been allowed just one and half hours to discuss a fistful of important amendments and complex issues about the government’s wish to transfer major powers to the EU and to put European duties into our law codes through adopting the Constitutional treaty. The government allowed four and half hours for a general debate each day, in order to prevent MPs getting into the important line by line analysis of the 358 Articles and 327 pages of the “Consolidated texts of the EU Treaties as amended by the Treaty of Lisbon”. Several MPs each day were unable to make the speech they wished to make on the first group of amendments. Subsequent amendments on the order paper languished without debate, thrown into the dustbin of history without word or vote.

Bill Cash invited a number of us concerned about the legislation to implement the EU Constitutional Treaty to meetings before the debates began in the House. We all agreed that we needed to move a series of amendments to strike out the varying parts of the Treaty and Bill which transfer substantial powers from the UK to the EU. Bill Cash kindly produced a wide ranging series of amendments which we co-signed and lodged. I am grateful to him for his hard work in producing them.

The government turned down the official Opposition’s request for 20 days of consideration. We were offered 12 in committee, plus a day on Second Reading to discuss the overall picture, and a day to discuss the so-called timetable motion. The Official Opposition argued passionately against the whole Treaty, and we voted against it on a three line whip. We all argued passionately against the very restrictive timetable, and voted against that on a three line whip. Needless to say we lost both votes, because there were too few Labour rebels. The Lib Dems side with the government on the Treaty.

There has been all too little about this in the media. These are important debates, whichever side of the argument you may be on. For Parliament to do them justice, we need more time to discuss the very detailed text before us.

All good things have to come to an end. The benign environment where China and India delivered an ever more stunning array of goods at fabulous prices is changing into an era when Chinese and Indian demand puts substantial upward pressure on raw materials. At the same time the West’s insatiable appetite for these goods based on leveraged credit has been hit by the Credit Crunch.

During an era of transition – from rapid credit led growth to slower growth, and from low inflation to higher inflation – there are always conflicting signals for policy makers. Some look resolutely back, seeing the build up of inflation that has come from past monetary excess: they demand the donning of a tougher hair shirt in the forms of high interest rates and more intense regulation. Others look forwards to the slow down, seeing that the credit crunch itself will in due course reduce inflationary pressures and slash asset prices, which in turn depresses demand more.

The latest inflation figures for the UK are poor, with RPI inflation running above 4% compared to the old government target of 2.5%, but they should have come as no surprise. The next couple of months will see further energy and food inflation flowing through. No one believes the 2.2% increase in the CPI reflects family experience of their daily budgets, and adds to the feeling that the government and the monetary authorities are out of touch.

Tne government itself is under pressure on the Non doms issue. Many in business now believe the government’s addition of more scrutiny and detailed rules on savings income to the idea of a flat fee will scare people away. If the government persists they will discover the hard way that there is one thing worse than having rich people here not paying full amounts of UK tax, and that is not having the rich people here paying any tax at all. The government needs more revenue to get closer to matching its bloated pattern of expenditure. It is not a good time to pick a fight with people who are making some contribution to the tax collected and to London’s successful economy. Sometime reality needs to take precedence over ideology or senses of fairness.

The government also eneds to tackle the obstinate problem of little or no growth in public sector productivitiy. Now we have such a large public sector it is more important than ever that its productivity should start to rise by at least the average growth rate for the economy as a whole. Manufacturers needs to raise their productivity considerably faster than 2.5% a year to stay in business in a very competitive world. It is high time the government found ways to use the new technology and better management techniques used widely in the private sector to deliver more public service for less.

The pound has been falling for some time against the Euro, and is now also falling against the dollar. Whilst this helps exporters to set more competitive prices, it means more imported inflation. The Gordon Brown devaluation is now shaping up to be bigger than the devaluation after the damaging Exchange Rate Mechanism experiment in European monetary co-operation, recommended by all three poltical parties and foolishly adopted by a previous Conservative government. The Bank of England will have to take into account this drop in the pound when it makes its interest rate decisions, as a falling currency does loosen monetary policy and relaxes inflationary disciplines.

The UK is going to have to pay a substantial premium in the form of higher interest rates than the USA, Japan, and Euroland for some time to come. That is the price of too large a government deficit, too much wasteful public spending, and a failure to raise productivity in the public realm. The UK is less well placed to offset the Credit Crunch than our main competitors because the government divorced Prudence many years ago. The government’s newer Valentine is its very own flexible friend, the Borrowing Requirement, as it continues to spend money it does not collect in taxes. Government borrowing is deferred taxation. We will all be paying the bills for years to come.

The government is worried about the persistent inflation rate in this country, at a time when we really need to cut interest rates to stimulate the economy and take some of the pressure off borrowers.

It has the answer to the problem under its own influence, as much of the high inflation rate is coming from public sector taxes and prices. Today we hear of the campaign to resist the 2p extra tax the government is proposing this April on petrol and diesel. This follows a totally unnecessary extra 2p on fuel last autumn.

These increases are vengeful against motorists and hauliers. The government’s tax take on fuel has soared anyway, thanks to the big increases in market prices which gives the government more revenue automatically from the ad valorem tax. If the government still believes fuel burn by travellers is the only part of the carbon dioxide problem it wishes to curb, it should recognise just how far its taxes and the Middle East oil situation have jacked prices up. People now need to be given time to adapt, to buy their more fuel efficient vehicles and scrap the older ones. They cannot afford to change their vehicles because the government is squeezing them too much, and they cannot afford the sky high train fares either.

The government has also stoked the inflationary fires by its mismanagement of the nationalised industries. Postal charges have surged, as a result of the government taking so much other government business away from the Post office. The very well paid management they have put in has decided that using monopoly pricing power is the easiest way to pay their bonuses, so the rest of us are suffering.

The nationalised railway track company has pushed up its costs and charges hugely since it came into public ownership. This is now being partly passed on in much higher fares to passengers for many journeys. The nationalised railway is no longer thought a suitable means of carrying much of the post around the country. We have the ridiculous sight of one nationalised industry refusing to use another on grounds of cost and efficiency, with the Minister when I last asked explaining to me that was the reason! You would have thought a government which defines being green as going by train would at least make the nationalised post go by train.

A whole series of fees and charges are regularly shoved up by more than inflation as the government seeks back door ways of taxing people. Local government too is on to the same trick, with its planning, building regulation and other fees. Council taxes are just about to go up by much more than the 2.1% inflation rate of the government’s official figures.

So what should the government do, to curb inflation? Instead of penalising us with high interest rates for its own inflationary actions, it should have a period when the costs government imposes go up by less than 2.1%, not by more. They could start by:

1. Announcing no further 2p increase in fuel taxes this spring.
2. Cutting fuel duty by the amount needed so the total tax take came out in line with the original budget figure, before the huge increases in prices we have seen in recent months swelled the total.
3. Telling Post Office management they should cancel the postal price increases and make up the money by efficiency gains. If they cannot, they should change the management to someone who can. It would not be difficult to do so in such a badly led organisation.
4. Putting the railway track company back under private sector discipline, to grapple with its bloated costs and inefficient use of contractors. In the meantime tell the regulator to prevent the above inflation fare increases, and stop the attempts by Network Rail to charge the rail operators too much for its poor service.
5. Reducing the costs imposed on local government, by cancelling much of the performance and best value regime, which in total cost Councils much more than £1 billion a year. Then demanding that they get their Council Tax increases down.
6. Putting a freeze on all other costs and charges imposed by the public sector for the next thirteen months to assure people the public sector is turning off its inflation machine.

Only if the government takes action like this can we regard it as serious in its stated wish to curb inflation. Only if it does this will the Bank of England have sufficient scope to lower interest rates, as it needs to do to tackle the Credit Crunch. We live under a rip off government. Please give us a break.

Tomorrow the Synod of the Church of England meets.
It has the power to change its agenda to deal with topical matters.
It should organise an early debate on the remarks of the Archbishop.

The Archbishop himself should suggest this, and should lead it. It would give him the chance to explain his "nuanced" positon to the Church, and to correct the more extreme claims of his critics. He after all wanted this debate, so it would be strange not to use the Church’s very own Parliament to further the debate.

The Archbishop could show wisdom if he apologised for allowing many of us to think he wanted to introduce features of Sharia law here with a parallel legal system, and could withdraw the phrases and statements that led to that belief.

Alternatively, he could use the platform to make his case in his own way, explaining why he thinks he was right all along, whatever his critics may say.

I fear the Synod instead will ignore this. That will lead to more fevered speculaiton in the press. It will lead some to ask why did he start this debate if he does not mean to carry it on? And why complain that the debate is not being conducted in the way you would like, if you yourself are not prepared to join in?

It is time for Dr Williams to emerge from hiding behind websites and spin doctors, and to take to the airwaves himself. The Synod would give him a fine platform – I bet the cameras and microphones would turn up if he agreed to put on a show. The Church should grasp such an opportuntiy with welcoming hands.

The Archbishop has got himself into a fine mess. It is curious that despite this I read and hear everywhere that he is intelligent and wise. Intelligent he may be, but he lacked judgement and wisdom on this occasion. It is strange that someone is such a senior position, with access to good advice, should have made such elementary errors in handling the media.

The hostile interpretation of his speech began before the speech was made. It was obvious from the first briefings about the speech both that the Archbishop wished this speech to attract attention, and that it was going to attract the wrong type of attention. Why didn’t the Archbishop review the way it was being presented before he made it, and adjust the text to make it safe?

Why did he allow himself to "assent" to a question which drove him further in the direction of appearing to recommend alternative law codes, when it must have been obvious by that stage how such proposals were going to be received by press and public?

Why did he then refuse to give further interviews the next day when the press had torn into his remarks? Wasn’t it time to come out fighting, to defend what he had said in person, or better still to withdraw the offending comments and end the storm?

Any politician or person in the public eye knows that journalists love to push you further than you wish to go. They understandably want good copy, and good copy is extreme or whacky copy. If you are an opposition politician every day you are faced with a cruel dilemma. Do you say very sensible things that most agree with – in which case you are unlikely to be reported – or do you say something that challenges, that takes the debate on – in which case you will be reported but with the danger of massive retaliatory spin against you from the affected interest groups or the alternative party? Oppositions have to choose their ground carefully, but they have to take risks to be heard.

Government Ministers and Archbishops are in a stronger position. Some of the things they say and do have to be reported, even if they are sensible and boring. They need take fewer risks. Their words reflect actions that affect many people’s daily lives, so they are newsworthy anyway. They also do not need to be in the media in the way an Opposition needs to be in the media. They have power to do good and make changes without reference to the media. Oppositions need media coverage to try to win people over to gain power. Establishments can get by without coverage, or with the lower level coverage that comes with doing the job sensibly.

It makes the Archbishop’s decision to want to lead a public debate on the issue of Sharia Law particularly strange to understand. You would have thought the Archbishop would be working away behind the scenes, out of the limelight of the national media, on how to unite the Anglican movement worldwide during a difficult time. You would have thought he would plan his use of the national media aorund Christmas and Easter, when the Church has more ready access to the news,to find new and better ways of communicating a positive Christian message. The Anglican Church is in retreat, losing communicants and struggling for a role in many communities. Some leadership on why Anglicanism matters would be appreciated. Some moral leadership on the big issues of the day might help. There is an important role for the leader of the Established Church, but he needs to first to secure his base rather than taking such risks as he took this week.

I spent the morning yesterday talking to people on doorsteps in my constituency, as I often do on a Saturday. It reminded me of the appeal of Barack Obama, sweeping to victory in three more states this weekend, taking his tally to 18 out of the 28 contested so far. Hillary Clinton is still in the race because she has won in the more heavily populated states by the sea in both the east and the west, where there are more delegate votes for the Convention. Obama’s appeal is that he is the anti Washington, anti establishment candidate – the man who tells the USA that unless they vote for change politics will remain as frustrating as it is today.

On the doorsteps in the UK there is a feeling of powerlessness. Here people are fed up with their government. They are resigned to having to put up with another couple of years of its tax grabbing, it wasteful spending, its crude authoritarianism, and its unwillingness to be honest about everything from the EU to the wars it makes us fight. I was told by several that their incomes are badly squeezed by high taxes. I heard a litany of complaints about waste in the NHS, in quangoland and in other public services. Some said they did not vote when there was an election on and saw no point in talking about political matters when there is no election. The growing army of single people are often out when you call, scurrying around to do the shopping in between their time at work or with friends.

People here hate big money politics. They hate the way the main political parties raise their money, and they hate the way they spend it. They are fed up with slick spin doctors making politicians play back to them their own views, sieved through polling and focus groups. They are fed up with people in power saying some of the right things but delivering nothing. They doubt the politicians are in charge, and are not sure any longer they care about them being in charge.

Here in the UK we want lower taxes, so we get higher taxes. We want the money to be spent better on our priorities in health and education, only to wake up to find so much of the money has been wasted on Metronet, Northern Rock, cancelled computerisation schemes, ID cards and Network Rail. We want our local Post Offices to be available to serve us, only to find that after the government has taken much of their government business away so they have to close. We want the best of our institutions preserved and cared for, only to find this government destroys so much of its inheritance in its desperate bid to bring us into line with the EU. We want fair minded and competent administration. Instead we get a benefits and tax credit system that lets so many people down –by overpayment and underpayment on a grand scale – and an amalgamated Revenue and Customs that seeks to maximise its tax take by any means.

The irony of the Obama campaign is that no doubt his fine words are crafted by expensive advisers. It is doubtless based on considerable polling and research. He can articulate the sense of frustration many Americans feel about the old firms, Bush and Clinton, who have dominated US politics for two decades as if it were an inheritance based system. He can point to the disillusion with Iraq, the anger with the sub prime crisis, the sense that there are still too many Americans who do not get the most out of the great society. He may be able to forge a coalition from the dispossessed and those who hate Washington, but he will be fighting apathy for many will think he too will become part of the problem should he be elected. I like his anti government rhetoric, but I doubt I would like his policies. The problem for the anti government campaigner is how would he make change stick? What changes would he make? Creating slimmer, better,more responsive government out of the huge bureaucracies the great democracies have now grown is not going to be an easy task.